They just seem too expensive to research and produce.
Are nukes worth it?
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
depends - if you want to really f**** someone's nation up big time and lasting - then yes.
Basically what happens if you drop a real nuke (not a tactical Cruise Missile) on a city:
a) it kills large parts of the population
b) it destroys most buildings
c) it annihilates pretty much any enemy unit parked in the town
d) it causes up to several days worth of contamination
e) it lowers the morale in said city
Defending against this very harsh weapon must be both active and passive, using theater air defense, underground bunkers and NBC protection for units.
But even with these there will be some bad mojo on the receiving end...
//G"Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf -
I was wondering about this. Many of my allies and enemies have developed and used these. I have never even gone past chemical weapons. These other nations use these weapons several times against a weaker enemy (in most cases a military that is on the world scale at 2 or 3% versus the user at 7 or more %) and still face as many or more losses. My losses with just tanks and mech infantry tend to be less than a third or quarter of whoever I am attacking in squads of 2 tanks and 1 infantry no matter how strong they are with almost equivalent levels as long as they don't have an air force superior than mine to combat patrols.
-
High end weapon, usefull for total war: even if enemy has more powerfull strikeforse: if you can nuke the cores, it is almoast over.
-
I'm thinking I might have to try a game where I use chemical/nuclear weapons. Might be interesting, especially with no global environmental consequences.
-
There are consequences for using WMDs in the sense that you have a lot of cleanup time, population dies and thus your economy will be affected.
Additionally there is a moral penalty for causing massive civilian casualties.
//G"Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf -
True on the cleanup and economy effects. And by the gods the civilian casualty penalties are horrible.... You have a lot of good points. I am just mainly used to the environmental effects of nuclear usage being a big part of the game. Ever played a game called Superpower? Use more than three nukes and the world begins going to hell. And economy on that was even more directly affected. Plus after the first nuke at least 30 nations declare war on you, lol. Thank you for bringing those points to my attention tho. Those were honestly not things I had considered (and I think over every action I take).
-
Just looking into the damages vs Units for some of the WMDs due to strange results in the live game. But the WMDs definitely cause massive damage to the city, pop and buildings.
So we are on it...
//G"Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf -
MAD man, MAD is the answer. I rarely use nukes (if I spot some noob large stack or if need to cripple enemy special units building capability like stealth bombers), basically have them so I could retaliate
-
We will most probably increase unit damage for WMDs across the board and by a large degree."Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
-
I've wondered about the massive stacks I see. 13 corvette lvl 1's, 22 varied army units, 11 ASF.... the amount of efficiency lost... I never use a stack of more than 5, sometimes 3 stacks of 5 to do anything aside from reorganize and redistribute. Just seems like asking to be nuked, chemical, etc.
-
Speaking of WMD I do not get what chemical missiles are for?
Are they used for destroying the population? -
They are particularly nasty at destroying anything squishy while leaving buildings pretty much undamaged.
Infantry and population are its main targets - while armored or otherwise more protected units suffer less.
Also bear in mind that higher level units receive NBC protection as an upgrade feature, massively reducing both chemical and nuclear damages.
//G"Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf -
Here is one of those stacks. 31 gunships at Porto Alegro in the bottom right corner... Considering the almost 30 ASF fighters spread out around em and flying ot the area... How long will they last in the fight? I don't think very long. If I hit em with nukes, how easily would they be destroyed? Curious on the effect of a nuke but on that game I haven't gone past conventional warheads.
-
Germanico wrote:
They are particularly nasty at destroying anything squishy while leaving buildings pretty much undamaged.
-
What you want for massed troops in a town is a ballistic missile or an icbm. Nuclear of course. They even get units stacked around the town/close by.
Cruise Missiles are tactical and will not obliterate everything - that is the job of ballistic missiles."Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf -
Germanico wrote:
They even get units stacked around the town/close by.
-
If my units are near the town hit w a nuclear icbm, will my units be hurt as well?
-
a groupd of 50+ fighters will be dead within 2 hours if you place 2 stacks of 1sam + 2 or 3 tds per stack near it. you wont lose anything.
tested, done, conquered, killed, murdered the whole flying circus
if theres many gunships, then add 2 mobile aa per stack as well.
Boom dead, died, murdered.- Give me a lever long enough, and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world - -
Apache wrote:
They just seem too expensive to research and produce.
icbm launch: to be continued meme